packages.html (was Re: svn commit: r1181689 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html)

[Ivan Zhakov <iv...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 14:28,  <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: ivan
> Date: Tue Oct 11 10:28:56 2011
> New Revision: 1181689
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1181689&view=rev
> Log:
> Revert r1181630: Making significant changes of website that haven't
> discussed. I will post details on dev@s.a.o later.
>
I have reverted this change because I don't understand the goals. What
you are trying to achieve?

I have reverted without discussion because this change was immediately
propagated to the web-side. On the other hand, you haven't discussed
this change before the commit!

More particularly, you have removed the link to VisualSVN Server
saying it's not a Subversion binaries.

VisualSVN Server is used by several hundreds of thousands of users.
There is a fully functional free Edition. There is no need to register
on the publisher's site. Really, no need to provide street address and
postal index to obtain a premium Subversion server for free. Moreover,
downloading and installing VisualSVN Server you are not subscribing
for a weekly up sales letter. And there is a free technical support
for the free edition of VisualSVN Server.

Search google.com for "Subversion server Windows" and you'll see
VisualSVN Server on the first page. Note that this is a fair first
place.

So, what is the objective to remove the link to VisualSVN Server?

The other side is that you have actually left links to CollabNET
Subversion Edge and Wandisco UberSVN (see details below). It
interesting that both are the direct competitors of VisualSVN Server.
Seems to be a biased change, isn't it?

There is a simple way: let's totally remove the "Binary Packages" page
(as we done with the "Links" and "Support"). It will be not very
useful for users, but it will be really vendor neutral. And there will
be no of such discussions.

Have you even followed the links that are marked as "client only" by you?

The http://www.collab.net/downloads/subversion/ leads to the page with
the following downloads:
* CollabNet Subversion Command-Line Client v1.6.17 (for Windows)
* CollabNet Subversion Edge 2.0.1 (for Windows 32 bit)
* CollabNet Subversion Edge 2.0.1 (for Windows 64 bit)

Not a "client only".

The http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download#windows leads to the
page dedicated to uberSVN.
[[
Free, easy to implement UI for Subversion which includes:
Everything you need to setup a Subversion server, including the latest
version of Subversion and Apache.
A very quick and easy setup wizard.
A social coding environment.
Easy to use administration console.
Basic Access Control.
]]

Yes, there is a link to command line client in the bottom of the page.
But not a "client only" page, for sure.

-- 
Ivan Zhakov
VisualSVN Team

Re: packages.html (was Re: svn commit: r1181689 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html)

[Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:39, Ivan Zhakov <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
>>...
>> I have reverted this change because I don't understand the goals. What
>> you are trying to achieve?
>
> What we discussed back in July, regarding clarity of what that page
> links to. Some of the pages did not provide Apache Subversion binaries
> for the server component, so I marked them "client only". Some of the
> landing pages had no indication of how to get an Apache Subversion
> binary (like the VisualSVN, Apple, and Sunfreeware pages), so I
> removed those.
>
> People use packages.html to find binary packages of Apache Subversion.
> They scan the page, and find a link that should work for them (given
> the annotations we make for that link) and then they click it. The
> target page should have Apache Subversion on it.
>
> If it does not... then why should it be listed on the page for people
> *looking* for those binaries?

I get what you are trying to accomplish but it feels like you are
looking at this through a "Linux distro" frame of mind.  What I mean
by that is that someone can produce a Subversion RPM (as an example)
that is designed to work with the packaging system from Red Hat and
declares a dependency on httpd etc to deliver a proper mod_dav_svn.
But you cannot realistically do the same for Windows.  Someone who
wants to download a Subversion "server" should also probably receive
Apache httpd and some other stuff in the same package.  So even then
it is not a distribution of just "OUR binaries".

VisualSVN makes it clear that you are downloading Apache Subversion
binaries plus a GUI for the Microsoft Management Console to configure
it.  UberSVN and Subversion Edge make it very clear that you are
downloading Apache Subversion binaries plus a web-based GUI to
configure and manage the server.  VisualSVN and UberSVN are both free.
 Subversion Edge is free AND open source.

I am not clear where the line is that we are drawing.  I am sure there
are a handful of Windows users out there that would like a zip file
that just has mod_dav_svn in it, but the majority of users would
rather get a working distribution that does not force them to hand
edit configuration files.  That is not how Windows applications are
expected to be installed or configured.  I do not see the argument
that we are helping users by steering them away from those links.

BTW, CollabNet does provide plain server binaries but they are not
clearly linked on the download page we provide.  So I am OK with the
edits you made with the caveat that I do not see the problem with
VisualSVN, UberSVN and SVNEdge.  That said, I am working to get the
download page redesigned.  When/if that happens if we have the server
binaries available on the same page I intend to remove the
"client-only" text.  I think it should be removed anyway, but I will
not put my interests ahead of those of the project if that feeling is
not shared.

-- 
Thanks

Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/

Re: packages.html (was Re: svn commit: r1181689 - /subversion/site/publish/packages.html)

[Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:39, Ivan Zhakov <iv...@apache.org> wrote:
>...
> I have reverted this change because I don't understand the goals. What
> you are trying to achieve?

What we discussed back in July, regarding clarity of what that page
links to. Some of the pages did not provide Apache Subversion binaries
for the server component, so I marked them "client only". Some of the
landing pages had no indication of how to get an Apache Subversion
binary (like the VisualSVN, Apple, and Sunfreeware pages), so I
removed those.

People use packages.html to find binary packages of Apache Subversion.
They scan the page, and find a link that should work for them (given
the annotations we make for that link) and then they click it. The
target page should have Apache Subversion on it.

If it does not... then why should it be listed on the page for people
*looking* for those binaries?

> I have reverted without discussion because this change was immediately
> propagated to the web-side. On the other hand, you haven't discussed
> this change before the commit!

We discussed this at the end of July. Further, the bulk of the changes
were annotations to clarify what the person would find *before* they
clicked on the link (only to be disappointed when they did NOT find an
Apache Subversion binary). I removed links that did not provide
binaries for *our* project.

Yes, WANdisco and CollabNet also provide other offerings on their
pages, but they *do* provide installs for Apache Subversion. Some of
those installs were client-only, so I annotated that.

> More particularly, you have removed the link to VisualSVN Server
> saying it's not a Subversion binaries.

Yup. As a user on visiting packages.html, looking for a binary... when
I click that link, I do *not* find Apache Subversion binaries. I find
VisualSVN. That doesn't help me. It wastes my time. I have to hit
"back" and try another link to find the binaries that I'm seeking.

I keeping saying "Apache Subversion" because that is what
packages.html is all about. It is *not* about Jane's or Jack's variant
of Subversion. It is about people wanting binaries for *our* project.
OUR project.

If the landing page does not provide that, then the link to that page
has no purpose being listed on our site. That was the outcome of our
discussion back in July.

[ for readers on the dev@ list that are wondering wtf I'm talking
about... this discussion was on our project's private list ]

> VisualSVN Server is used by several hundreds of thousands of users.

So fucking what? That does it give it any "Right" to be listed. If you
want to start measuring dick sizes, I bet the WANdisco and CollabNet
people would be happy to bring out statistics, and say they also serve
hundreds of thousands of users. We still don't care.

packages.html is for people looking for binaries. Totally independent
of whether those binaries are popular.

>...
> So, what is the objective to remove the link to VisualSVN Server?

Because that landing page is not providing Apache Subversion binaries.

> The other side is that you have actually left links to CollabNET
> Subversion Edge and Wandisco UberSVN (see details below). It
> interesting that both are the direct competitors of VisualSVN Server.
> Seems to be a biased change, isn't it?

Not at all. I'm not biased. Fuck those guys, for all I care. Those
landing pages provided binaries. Some were *only* client binaries, so
I annotated the links to say as much.

Did those pages also provide other software? Yup. But that doesn't
matter. The pages *do* provide links for Apache binaries. That is all
that matters to people on packages.html looking for software.

> There is a simple way: let's totally remove the "Binary Packages" page

Don't be stupid. The page is useful.

>...
> Have you even followed the links that are marked as "client only" by you?

Absolutely. In fact, I even had to sign up with WANdisco to get links
to the CentOS binaries. I wanted to see if the resulting links gave me
client-only or both clients and servers. It provided both, so I did
not have to annotate that link. I didn't have to register with
CollabNet because it was already obvious (from their landing page)
what the installation links provided.

>
> The http://www.collab.net/downloads/subversion/ leads to the page with
> the following downloads:
> * CollabNet Subversion Command-Line Client v1.6.17 (for Windows)
> * CollabNet Subversion Edge 2.0.1 (for Windows 32 bit)
> * CollabNet Subversion Edge 2.0.1 (for Windows 64 bit)
>
> Not a "client only".

When talking about Apache Subversion... yes, client-only. And
CollabNet is offering some other gunk on that page. Who cares. As long
as I'm on packages.html, see a link that says I can get Windows
binaries, and when I click... that I can get them.

> The http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download#windows leads to the
> page dedicated to uberSVN.
>...
> Yes, there is a link to command line client in the bottom of the page.
> But not a "client only" page, for sure.

Same deal as CollabNet. If I can get what I'm looking for, then it is fine.

You put VisualSVN back, but it should not be there unless/until that
page tells me that I can get plain Apache Subversion binaries. If the
page *only* offers me somebody other than Apache, then it has no
reason to be listed on OUR project page.

Cheers,
-g